So here’s the story, as I understand it. Until recently, a British company (P&O Port), managed port operations at major ports in six American cities, including New York. That company has now been bought by a state-owned company in Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). A week or so ago, the Bush administration approved the transaction, allowing the UAE company to take over management of these ports. And when this was discovered, a shitstorm of epic proportions erupted in Washington DC, with both Democrats and Republicans (including Senate majority leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert) demanding that the deal be put on hold and possibly rejected. Bush has said that he will veto any attempt to derail the transaction.
Now, I’m all for improving security at our ports – it seems to me that ports are a series of huge gaping holes in our nation’s borders that present numerous opportunities for bad things to happen. But I really have to wonder whether Bush isn’t right about this one. From the NY Times article:
“I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly.'” …
The White House appeared stunned by the uprising, over a transaction that they considered routine â especially since China’s biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States, as do a host of other foreign companies. Mr. Bush’s aides defended their decision, saying the company, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates, would have no control over security issues.
Some administration officials, refusing to be quoted by name, suggested that there was a whiff of racism in the objections to an Arab owner taking over the terminals….
But firestorm of opposition to the deal drew a similarly intense expression of befuddlement by shipping industry and port experts. The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago and across the United States, foreign-based companies already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals. That inventory includes APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore, and which operates terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign government or foreign-based companies.
“This kind of reaction is totally illogical,” said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. “The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant.”
Hmm. So people in the business aren’t worried – the quote from Mr. Damas is similar to one I heard from a security analyst on NPR (whose name I didn’t catch) who said that although port security is a serious problem, this particular transaction does not seem to increase the risk. In fact, it appears that the only people worried about this transaction are politicians. That’s usually a bad sign.
Here’s how it looks to me. Lots of our ports are already managed by foreign-owned companies, including companies in some countries whose human rights and other practices aren’t exactly A-1. Furthermore, apparently the management companies have nothing to do with port security – that is now, always has been, and always will be run by the Coast Guard. And, finally, the UAE has supposedly been cooperative in our anti-terrorism efforts. (Yes, two 9/11 hijackers came from the UAE, but there are bad apples in every orchard (where was Timothy McVeigh from, again?) – do we think the UAE or Dubai government itself was involved?) Yet suddenly the transfer of six ports from a British company to a UAE company is an unacceptable breach of American security?
I don’t buy it. I think this is politicians who know they haven’t done enough on port security seizing on this development as a way of looking like they’re serious about an issue on which they know they’ve dropped the ball big time. And the vigor with which the politicians in question are excoriating the possibility of “an Arab-owned company” managing American ports makes me more than a tad uncomfortable. It almost hurts me to say this, but it sure looks to me like Bush is right.
Well, no, not really.
<
p>
They were one of three nations to recognize the Taliban as legit gov’t in Afghanistan.
<
p>
They stonewalled US efforts to chase the money flowing to Osama Bin Ladin via UAE bank accounts.
<
p>
They’ve almost certainly been a condiut point for shipping nuclear materials to Lybia, Iran, and North Korea.
<
p>
UAE hasn’t exactly been an example of tremendous help in hunting down international terrorists. We’re not talking about a company based in the UAE but owned by a diffuse set of stockholders; we’re talking about a company owned by the UAE.
<
p>
In the short term, I’m not worried. I am, however, worried about long term implications. frankly, I only want “A-List” national companies operating US ports: loosely speaking, Western Europe, Australia, and Canada. UAE is nowhere near that list, and it has nothing to do with religion or skin color. It has everything to do with long term national security — reducing the long term risk on US soil.
should we bar companies from China, Singapore, etc. from port management, even though they’ve apparently been in the business for some time? (This is a serious, non-rhetorical question, by the way.)
I’ll jump in and say “perhaps.” Certainly, we need to do more analysis than has been done, which at least looks to be none at all. I’m sorry, but I was as disturbed at seeing China on the list, for more traditional national security reasons. Singapore leaves me far less concerned, despite its substantial Muslim population; but I’d rather have ports be entirely American-managed than be open to charges of racism.
<
p>
I don’t think it’s racism, but it’s certainly close. A lot of it, I guess, is just thinking that we shouldn’t be running these things this way. It had never occured to me that the ports were privately run – were it up to me, I’d prefer them be nationalized. So while I’m sure a lot of the white noise around this mess is political and/or racist, there’s a logical undercurrent supporting nationalizing ports, in my book. A clearly government operation should be run by the government.
<
p>
However, I really need to know more about the Coast Guard’s role in this – perhaps the relevant portions are properly nationalized and the companies just operate equipment. I don’t know. And that’s part of the noise surrounding this. Instead of the Administration laying down all the cards and letting people make intelligent decisions, they’re just threatening a veto out-of-hand; if someone is hiding something from you, you have to assume they’re hiding it because that something would disturb you.
Though I can’t complain with the political fallout from all of this. The Republicans are attacking each other like crazy. It seems like the best thing for the Dems to do is to let the GOP hang itself on this one.
My first reaction was ,of course, the security concern if we allowed a foreign based company to manage the ports. This was buffered by my belief (whether you like him or not) that the president would never allow our security to be compromised. Further analysis last night provided me with the comfort that this is more of a media driven story where both democrats and republicans are gathering sound bites for their own personal agenda’s . I suggest that anyone who wants to make a rational decision on the management of our ports by foreign companies should research the issue as David quite elequently points out above
the whole fiasco does highlight how this administration, which has constantly beat the “we’ll keep you safe and they won’t” drum, hasn’t actually done anything to make us safer (let alone what they’ve done to make us less safe).
<
p>
Port Security and Homeland Security, in general, should be huge issues in 2006 elections. They gave you Michael Brown, Chertoff, and the rest of the gang … we can do better. They got failing grades in nearly all areas from the BiPartisan 9/11 Commission … we can and will do better.
<
p>
Yes, this specific case has involved more soundbites that sound policy, but if it highlights massive hole in our nation’s defense (as the ports are) then thats a good thing because it will either spur the Congress to action, or it will punish those who fail to act.
As I noted above, port security is a big problem and if this event spurs action to address it, that would of course be a very good thing. The real worry, though, is that Congress will get all worked up over this one transaction, pat itself on the back for “doing something” about the problem, and then, having done so, go back to ignoring real security threats. Politicians tend to be a little weak on follow-through, and this is an excellent test case.
it seems that it’s yet another case of George Bush being too afraid to actually confront (or âjawboneâ as he promised to do with OPEC in the event that oil prices ever got too high) the political Islamists, because if he did the political Christianists that he and Karl Rove love so much might freak out.
I agree that an important aspect of this story is that it brings our woeful port security back into focus. I was always surprised that John Kerry’s statements on the security of our ports and chemical/nuclear infrastructure didn’t gain more traction in 2004.
<
p>
To me, though, the main point we can draw from this story is this: No one trusts this administration to make the right decisions any more.
<
p>
Of course, most Democrats feel that Bush lost all credibility after the Iraq/WMD fiasco, but Republicans stood by him. But in just the last month we’ve had the scathing Republican report on the federal response to Katrina; the domestic spying revelations and ensuing investigations; and now the administration’s decision to allow this business deal to go through.
<
p>
In each case, Bush told the country “don’t worry, we’re taking care of it”. And in each case, Democrats led the way in convincing the public, and eventually some Congressional Republicans, that the administration’s claims should not be taken at face value.
<
p>
Once the convential wisdom becomes that the administration is incompetent, Democrats must make sure that everyone knows how close Congressional Republicans are tied to the administration. Only after that (and positive indications of what Dems would do differently) will we be able to make sweeping gains in the 2006 elections.
Perception is everything. And bush set up himself for this.
<
p>
Indeed the points you bring up ring true. But bush has pushed the so-called “war on terror” and himself as the one to see us through till “victory” on an unending war. (
Please let me know how you achieve victory on a war with no end.)
<
p>
So, if bush says we’re at war, the transaction of the ports to the AUE is perceived as though after Pearl Harbor was attacked we would have handed out free visa’s to the Japanese instead of rounding them up in America’s version of concentration camps.
<
p>
So bush now has a MAJOR perception problem. In that in being if he admits that although the AUE indeed is a good idea, and most of the Arab people are good people, he also has to then admit that the number of hard-core terrorists in this world probably doesn’t amount to but just a few hundred at most. NOW, the question arises as to why we’re spending close to $500 BILLION on defense when it’s obvious that a military budget of this size is not needed to fight what a police force should be able to handle.
<
p>
So, bush is right on the idea that doing business with the AEU would strengthen relationships. But the perception is that he’s handing the keys to the empire to our sworm enemies, and it’s bush that has strengthened that perception with his wrong military invasion in Iraq. So now people are asking, why if there was not one Iraqi on any of the planes that attacked us on 9/11 we didn’t instead attack the AUE who had two and still funds terrorist groups, or Saudi Arabia who supplied 15?
<
p>
This is what happens when you try to run a government as a business. But businesses are NOT in the business of “governing”. If anything they are dictatorships who’s only interest is the bottom line.
<
p>
So it is “business as usual” in the bush administration and with every other of the “powers that be”, which is to keep them in control, power and rich and keep the masses blind and thankful that they can afford all those cheep trinkets we can buy at your local Wal-Mart, as they trample freedom and continue their version of ‘the new world order”. Which is wrong.
I agree with a lot of what you’ve said. My fear, though, is that those criticizing the deal – Democrats in particular (I don’t much care what Republicans say) – are, with their rash comments about how awful it would be for “an Arab country” to have a role in managing US ports, putting in jeopardy a decent working relationship with those Arab businesses and countries that are genuinely trying to do something about terrorism and genuinely want to work with the U.S. We NEED those businesses and those governments to work with us. So I totally agree that Bush has set himself up for this. But I still think it’s important for Dems in particular not to fall into the trap of alienating moderate Arab elements. Dems can score points on this issue in other ways.